[Xorg] Re: i830 driver status..

Adam Jackson ajax at nwnk.net
Mon Jul 19 14:50:17 PDT 2004

Hash: SHA1

On Monday 19 July 2004 16:41, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:29:27 -0700, Eric Anholt <eta at lclark.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I'm thinking maybe we don't want to use a branch.  Here's the idea: We
> > make the DevelDRIDrivers define in imake include all these new,
> > insecure, not-guaranteeing-backwards-compatibility drivers, and they're
> > only turned on when we add #define BuildDevelDRIDrivers YES.  For the
> > DDXs of those drivers, we add this to their Imakefile
> >
> > #if !BuildDevelDRIDrivers
> > #undef BuildXF86DRI
> > #endif
> >
> > Now, no more fighting with branches, merges both directions, etc.  We
> > get to keep saying "These drivers are insecure, we don't guarantee
> > backwards compatibility," etc. because they're disabled.  Our users are
> > happy that they don't have to learn about checking out branches to get
> > their drivers.  And we can ensure that we continue covering compiling of
> > both paths in trunk by using the tinderbox.


> Sounds good to me, however, does that mean there'll have to be lots of
> #ifdefs in the code to protect the "experimental" sections from the
> "stable" sections in the DDXs?  I suppose that wouldn't be too bad.

We need those anyway, to mask the DRI code off from non-DRI platforms.

- - ajax
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the xorg mailing list